Cappster wrote:If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

Once again you undercut your own credibility. You're asking the people who believe in God to justify ... your ... views. You don't need God, you don't need us to explain God to you, you're explaining God to us. You don't need anyone else in the thread at all.

You are trying to spin things here, Kaz. Not a surprise, but a spin nonetheless. If everyone kept God to themselves the world would be a better place, but no, we have people out their trying to stuff their "God" agenda's down everyone's throats. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want and more power to them. If God is so obvious then it should be easy to point out the existence of said God. I am just trying to find out how people think they know this God figure. I am choosing the red pill (Matrix reference) if the pill does anything at all. I have yet to feel its effects.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Now any grown man can read the bible, "king James the whatever's VERSION" as written by man. What men? Charles Manson types? Hail bop goons?

I don't know if you get National Geographic or not (it's a great magazine, BTW, and I highly recommend it), but last December's issue featured an article about the King James Bible. It is a very scholarly researched book. I really had no idea just how much so until I read that article.

Red_One43 wrote:I have learned that to study a religion, one would be best served to study the core beliefs from the founder of the religion - not what evolved from the founder's original teachings. What did Jesus say? The Buddha? Mohammed? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? A little bit of historical background information would help too. Did organizd really religion really twist up every good message?

chiefhog44 wrote:Founder of religion...doesn't make logic sense does it? This is what institutions have pushed us to believe, that there was one person that came up with, for example, the idea to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. Forcing people to choose what founder to follow to total consciousness, enlightenment if you will. There were several of these so called founders. That is why you, RedOne, study many different religions. You realize this. And once you do that, which it sounds like you have, you realize that they share most all of the core beliefs. I understand what you are saying, but in the context of studying, there should never be a founder of a religion. These are principles to help people govern themselves through their course of life, and ultimately find their consciousness or meaning.

Institutions have twited the meaning of what it means to be religious. They have turned it into a ritual following organization that will accept no other word. The underlying word has been lost in this process.

I would have to agree that there is no such thing as a "founder" of a religion. No so called "founder" of a religion actually founded a religion. Religions evolved from their teachings. I will stand corrected on that.

The rest of your comments I found to be insightful and enjoyed reading.

Deadskins wrote:I don't know if you get National Geographic or not (it's a great magazine, BTW, and I highly recommend it), but last December's issue featured an article about the King James Bible. It is a very scholarly researched book. I really had no idea just how much so until I read that article.

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

"I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need. You draft the best available football player on the board. ... Because, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games." - Scot McCloughan

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Now any grown man can read the bible, "king James the whatever's VERSION" as written by man. What men? Charles Manson types? Hail bop goons?

I don't know if you get National Geographic or not (it's a great magazine, BTW, and I highly recommend it), but last December's issue featured an article about the King James Bible. It is a very scholarly researched book. I really had no idea just how much so until I read that article.

Indeed it is.. I was overly sarcastic but the point remains. King James had to approve the scriptures and must have tossed others. Was he so blessed to know the difference between (in modern terms) psycho babble and prophetic vision? If the book is truly holier-than-thou, then why is it not GODs version?

* I know his "version" is merely the "translation" of 1611, but as King he surely had some say in the matter. I know its been said scholars find it on par with what was before and yada yada, but NO version has a case for whose word was taken as biblical and who was thrown in a dungeon. King James just gets the brunt of that argument for being on "nowadays'" cover.

** as for the kindergarden stories within about apples and snakes and what not.. believing we are all imbread cuz some silly hoe ate an apple is a bit much for me, even when I've had a few!

I truly enjoy the discussion, in no way am I attacking, or supporting anyone.. I just love to analyze, question, and debate... Particularly topics that are faux pas.

Cappster wrote:If God exists and religion(s) have it all wrong, again, he should set the record straight. It's a simple concept of "show me conclusively that you (whoever or whatever that is) are God and I will, in turn, give credit where credit is due."

Once again you undercut your own credibility. You're asking the people who believe in God to justify ... your ... views. You don't need God, you don't need us to explain God to you, you're explaining God to us. You don't need anyone else in the thread at all.

You are trying to spin things here, Kaz. Not a surprise, but a spin nonetheless.

I'm spinning nothing. No surprise. People don't like their spin unspun. No surprise, you like to say I'm spinning like others rather then stand behind your own spin. The spin is you keep telling us God's omnipotent, it's God's job to do this and that you think he should. If you're asking us to justify God, then you have to stop spinning that we have to answer your pre-conceived views no one's arguing, that's the spin here.

Cappster wrote:If everyone kept God to themselves the world would be a better place, but no, we have people out their trying to stuff their "God" agenda's down everyone's throats. Everyone has a right to believe whatever they want and more power to them. If God is so obvious then it should be easy to point out the existence of said God. I am just trying to find out how people think they know this God figure. I am choosing the red pill (Matrix reference) if the pill does anything at all. I have yet to feel its effects.

Now you're not arguing "God" you're arguing "Religion." No, they aren't the same. My posts are all pretty clear on that. I started the whole thing saying I believe in God, I don't like religion.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

If Joel Osteen can like.many before him, get filthy rich off the "word" and make it to heaven... I for one will drop his ass if I get there and laugh all the way down!

I hate religion and particularly TV preachers, but he's one of the few that I actually like. Not that I watch his show, but I hear parts because my wife watches him. She is religious. Osteen is what I think religion should be, help people have perspective and live a better life. I've never heard dogma from him, though admittedly I've only had a certain amount of exposure to him.

Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

void-without contents; empty

form-the shape or configuration of something as distinct from its colour, texture, etc
It would of been the heavens not the earth then.

Mississippiskinsfan2 wrote:All you just said was that the earth wasnt there really......

That is definitely not what I said, nor is it what "void and without form" means. And for the record, I don't think "earth" here means the planet on which we live, but rather all the matter in the universe.

void-without contents; empty

form-the shape or configuration of something as distinct from its colour, texture, etc It would of been the heavens not the earth then.

Um, no. Do you understand what the term singularity means with respect to black holes or the pre-big bang universe? It means that all the matter is compressed to an infinitely small point. In other words void, and without form.

If Joel Osteen can like.many before him, get filthy rich off the "word" and make it to heaven... I for one will drop his ass if I get there and laugh all the way down!

I hate religion and particularly TV preachers, but he's one of the few that I actually like. Not that I watch his show, but I hear parts because my wife watches him. She is religious. Osteen is what I think religion should be, help people have perspective and live a better life. I've never heard dogma from him, though admittedly I've only had a certain amount of exposure to him.

I've seen and heard way to.much.. I've also seen his estate and fancy cars, that he has money to pay for after selling out football stadiums like he is John Lennon. If he's so full of the voice of the lord and wishes to truly help people, WTF doesn't he go to a bigger venue and make it free?! EVERY time. Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate. If the church needs something set up a specific goal and have volunteers for tasks to get things done. With the wide array of church goers it should be easy to find someone(s) in the congregation who has the tools/means to help their church. When I go to church and see the pasture driving a Benz, taking money from people whom I KNOW don't have it, it makes me sick. Or when a Christian preaches to me about how Tibetans are going to hell.. like the kindest people are evil? Maybe "god" has a way of getting the.message out to different walks of earth.

If the words the same, be a good fn person, then what's the hang up between religions? No our way or burn in hell for... for .... Eternity! Sftu maybe simple men in simple times are scared of that isht I'm not.

cowboykillerzRED wrote:Turning a profit off of preaching, to me, is blasphemous. ALL preachers should have a JOB and there shouldn't be an "offering" plate.

Now, when you say "turning a profit," does that include drawing a salary? Because preaching IS a full-time JOB. Churches minister to the sick, hungry, and homeless as well as their regular congregations. They are on call 24 hours a day every day of the year. You have absolutely no idea how demanding a job it is. Are there those that abuse the position for greed and profit? Of course, just like any other authoritative position. But for you to cast such a wide net, is idiotic, and shows a total ignorance of the subject.